R. K. ABICHANDANI. J. ( 1 ) THE appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 30. 4. 1993 of the Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Sessions case No. 11 of 1992 convicting the appellant no. 1 for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 429 of the Indian Penal Code and section 11 (1) (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the appellants nos. 2 and 3 for the offences under section 302 read with Sections 34, 323 and 429 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant no. 1 for the offence under section 302 of IPC and the appellant nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. In view of this sentence, no separate sentence was awarded for other offences. ( 2 ) THE prosecution version was that the appellant no. 1 (original accused no. 1) mahendrasinh Balvantsinh Parmar who was the son-in- law of brother of the complainant dr. Dayaben, had on 2nd October, 1991 in the evening at about 8. 00 P. M. come to the house of the complainant alongwith his companions the appellant nos. 2 and 3 (Original accused nos. 2 and 3 respectively) as guests. The accused no. 1 was introduced to her husband Dr. Jivraj Pansuria by the complainant, and these guests were taken for dinner around 10. 00 p. m. to a nearby hotel from where they returned to the house of the complainant "at about 11. 00 p. m. Thereafter, they chatted for some time and then these three accused persons were given the guest room and the complainant and her husband retired in their bed room. Around one Oclock of that night, the pet dog of the complainant "jimmy", a Pomeranian, started barking. The complainant thereupon noted through the window of her bed room that lights of the guest room were on. She therefore, went in the drawing room and asked the guests as to why were they not sleeping. They told her that they were not getting sleep and requested her to put on a video cassettee of an English movie on the TV. She therefore, adjusted a video cassette for them, so that they can see the movie. She therefore, went in the drawing room and asked the guests as to why were they not sleeping. They told her that they were not getting sleep and requested her to put on a video cassettee of an English movie on the TV. She therefore, adjusted a video cassette for them, so that they can see the movie. Thereafter, the complainants dog pulled her by her dress to indicate that it wanted to go out and it was therefore, taken by her in the terrace in front of the door of the house. The building in which this Doctor couple resided was known as dhanvatari Nivas. They were residing on the 4th floor and as is clear from the evidence on record, while going on that floor, one enters in the open space which is described as terrace and through that terrace one can enter the house of the complainant in the drawing room. At the entrance of the terrace from the staircase there is an iron grill which was closed at night before the inmates retired to bed. The prosecution version is that after taking the dog out in the terrace, she brought it back and while she was opening the door of the refrigerator to take out water, she heard some steps approaching her and on looking back, she saw that the accused no. 1 was giving Knife blows to the dog as a result of which, the dog died. At that time, she questioned him but the accused no. 2 Shankerji dapuji Parmar started giving her knife blows. On hearing the noise, Dr. Pansuria woke up and asked as to what was happening and at that time, the accused no. 1 Mahendrasinh and accused no. 3 Batukji Kalaji Parmar rushed inside the bed room and mounted on Dr. Jivraj Pansuria and started giving knife blows to him. The complainant told them to leave him and they could take whatever money they wanted. After killing Dr. Pansuria, when the accused started going, the accused no. 3 snatched away the Mangalsutra which she was wearing. She was given a push and she fell down. After some time, the maid servant of the house Sunita who was about 13 years of age at the relevant time, and who was also given a knife blow by the accused no. 1, came near her. 3 snatched away the Mangalsutra which she was wearing. She was given a push and she fell down. After some time, the maid servant of the house Sunita who was about 13 years of age at the relevant time, and who was also given a knife blow by the accused no. 1, came near her. Both of them then went to the gallary from where they shouted for help of one Mansukhbhai, the neighbour. Manukhbhai was told that the guest who had come had beaten them and gone away. Mansukhbhai gave a message to Jalalpor police station over phone that three persons had fought and run away from Dr. Pansurias house and police help may be sent. The entry was made in the station diary in this regard at 2. 20 p. m. on 3. 10. 91. The complainant Dr. Dayaben and her maid servant Sunita were thereafter rushed to the Civil Hospital, but as there was no Surgeon there, they were sent to Parsi Hospital, where they were admitted as indoor patients. Around 3. 30 a. m. , the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the complainant who had received several injuries and was bleeding. After some time, her FIR Exh. 65-A was recorded and completed at 5. 10 a. m. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case further is that immediately after leaving the house of the complainant, the accused persons at about 1. 30 a. m. to 2. 30 a. m. got into an autorickshaw which was plied by witness Ajaykumar Jagdishbhai and they asked him to take the auto rickshaw to the Civil Hospital, saying that one of them was injured in the accident. They asked the driver whether there was any good hospital and he told them that there was k. G. Hospital. Thereafter, the accused no. 1 got down at the K. G. Hospital while the accused nos. 2 and 3 inquired of the driver whether he could take them to Surat, but as there was no sufficient petrol in the auto rickshaw, he showed his inability and therefore, they asked him to take them to the railway station. The accused nos. 2 and 3 were therefore, dropped by him at the railway station. P. S. I. Ramani who had around 2. 50 a. m. come to know that three persons had run away after beating people at Dr. The accused nos. 2 and 3 were therefore, dropped by him at the railway station. P. S. I. Ramani who had around 2. 50 a. m. come to know that three persons had run away after beating people at Dr. Jivraj pansurias place, informed the policemen in the entire township area to keep a watch and look out for the autorickshaw no. GTD 6318. PSI Natwarlal Patel who was on night duty on coming to know about the incident, proceeded to trace out the accused persons and when he went to the K. G. Hospital, he came to know that the accused no. 1 was admitted there as an indoor patient under a false name Jignesh Ambalal Patel of Vadodara. Police constable N. M. Borse, P. W. 14, while on patrolling duty on that night, was told at about 3. 45 a. m. near the railway station by PS. I. Ramani to look out for these accused persons who had gone in the said rickshaw. The said constable detected that rickshaw at the railway station and on inquiry from the driver, he came to know that two persons had got down and proceeded to the railway station. Thereafter, this constable, went to the waiting room alongwith the driver and the accused nos. 2 and 3 were found from there. They were brought to the police station and the panchnama exh. 35 was drawn of the things which were recovered from them which included broken Mangalsutra of the complainant which was recovered from the pant pocket of the accused no. 3. blood stained clothes were also recovered. In the bag also, there were blood stained clothes, napkin and a towel. There were in all six hand gloves recovered of which two pairs of hand gloves were having blood spots. A toy pistol and three knives were also recovered from them. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted on 24. 12. 1991 for the offences under sections 302, 307, 324, 392, 397, 429 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against the appellants on 27. 11. A toy pistol and three knives were also recovered from them. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted on 24. 12. 1991 for the offences under sections 302, 307, 324, 392, 397, 429 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against the appellants on 27. 11. 1992 and they were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 392, 397, 429 of the Indian Penal Code and section 11 (1) (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and in the alternative, for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 392, 397, and 429 read with Section 11 (1) (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. ( 4 ) THE defence version was that all the accused had gone to the house of the complainant in the evening on 2. 10. 1991 and after they had gone for a dinner, with the complainant and her husband, all five had returned to the house around 10. 45 p. m. At that time, they were asked to stay over. After some time, Dr. Pansuria brought two bottles of liquor and asked them to take some liquor. They told him that they did not drink. However, as Dr. Pansuria insisted, they took some liquor. All the remaining liquor was consumed by Dr. Pansuria and at about midnight at about 12. 30 a. m. he became successfully drunk and went to his room. The accused persons were not getting sleep and therefore, they asked the complainant Dayaben to put some movie on the VCR which was in the drawing room. According to them, they were seeing the movie and at that time, the dog of the complainant came barking there and had bitten on the hand of the accused no. 3 Batukji Kalaji who screamed and simultaneously with the other hand started beating the, dog to keep it away. As a result of this commotion, Dr. Jivraj Pansuria came in the sitting room and gave an abuse and went inside and brought a knife and started attacking the accused no. 3 Batukji. The accused no. 1 intervened and caught knife. The accused no. 2 Shankerji Parmar also came running there to help him. As a result of this, Shankerji parmar was injured in his palm by the knife. The accused no. 1 had also suffered an injury in his palm by the knife. 3 Batukji. The accused no. 1 intervened and caught knife. The accused no. 2 Shankerji Parmar also came running there to help him. As a result of this, Shankerji parmar was injured in his palm by the knife. The accused no. 1 had also suffered an injury in his palm by the knife. Due to shouts, public had gathered there and therefore, all these accused escaped from there. The accused no. 1 was required to be admitted in the hospital and therefore, they had gone to the K. G. Hospital in an auto rickshaw where the accused no. 1 got down and went inside the hospital, while the accused nos. 2 and 3 had proceeded in the rickshaw for going to their houses. First they were taken on the highway by the rickshaw driver and thereafter to the railway station from where these accused nos. 2 and 3 were taken in the custody. ( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence on record found that the prosecution had established that all the accused persons had in furtherance of their common intention intentionally caused death of Dr. Jivraj Pansuria by inflicting knife blows on him. It was also held that in furtherance of their common intention, they had killed the dog of the complainant by inflicting knife blows on it. It was further held that these accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had caused injuries to Dr. Dayaben and the maid servant Sunita. It was however, held that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused persons had in furtherance of their intention attempted to cause murder of Dr. Dayaben or that they had in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery by snatching away the Mangalsutra of Dr. Dayaben. It was also held that the prosecution had not established that these accused persons had caused injuries by a sharp cutting instrument to Dr. Dayaben or the maid servant Sunita. They were therefore, acquitted for the offences under sections 324, 307, 392, and 397 of the Indian penal Code. The accused nos. 2 and 3 were also acquitted for the offences under section 11 (1) (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. All the accused were convicted for other offences as noted above against which they have preferred this appeal. The accused nos. 2 and 3 were also acquitted for the offences under section 11 (1) (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. All the accused were convicted for other offences as noted above against which they have preferred this appeal. ( 6 ) THE leanred counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the very genesis of the incident was doubtful and it was not possible to hold that the incident could have occurred in the manner in which it is said to have occurred. It was submitted that, the complainant Dr. Dayaben in her dying declaration did not answer material questions and she has given an improved version later on. She even went to the length of denying that they kept on chatting till 12. 30 p. m. after returning from the dinner. It was further submitted that the story of robbery was disbelieved and therefore, no motive for the crime was established. It was further contended that the injuries on these three accused persons were not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. As regards the deposition of maid servant, it was submitted that she was an employee and a young witness who could not be implicitly trusted and her story was not natural. It was submitted that her statement was recorded on the 4th day of incident. It was also submitted that there was no reason for the accused no. 1 to call her out of room before they left the house and that her conduct was unnatural. It was further argued that the prosecution story that two different assailants inflicted knife blows stands discredited by the medical evidence to the effect that knife muddamal article 29 alone could have resulted in these injuries if blows were given by that knife. It was further contended that even if blows were dealt with by the knife on Dr. Pansuria, death was not caused because of such blows, but it was caused due to suffocation, as per the medical evidence. It was further contended that no food particles were found in the stomach of the deceased because they were not noted in the post mortem notes. The learned counsel finally contended that the defence version of the accused persons that Dr. It was further contended that no food particles were found in the stomach of the deceased because they were not noted in the post mortem notes. The learned counsel finally contended that the defence version of the accused persons that Dr. Jivraj Pansuria might have become drunk and got enraged on these accused persons on seeing his dog being beaten and that he tried to attach these accused persons by a knife which was caught hold of by the accused no. 1 causing injuries to his palm, cannot be ruled out. ( 7 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of the injured eye witnesses Dayaben and Sunita clearly brought out the guilt of these accused persons. He submitted that this was a case of pre-planned murder where these accused persons had brought all the equipments with them including knife, six pairs of hand gloves and having got an easy access, to the house of Dr. Dayaben because of relationship of the accused no. 1 with her, as he was the son-in-law of her brother, they abused the hospitality and initially killed the dog and thereafter, attacked Dr. Jivraj Pansuria as also the complainant and the maid servant Sunita, resulting in the death of Dr. Jivraj Pansuria, serious injuries to Dr. Dayaben and her maid servant Sunita. It was submitted that the learned Sessions judge had rightly come to the conclusion that all the accused were guilty of the offence of murder of Dr. Pansuria, committed in furtherance of their common intention. The learned public Prosecutor further argued that at the time when accused nos. 2 and 3 were apprehended, Mangalsutra Muddamal Article no. 3 of the complainant Dayaben was found from the right side pant pocket of the accused no. 3 Batukji Parmar in a broken condition and its locket had bent. The said Mangalsutra was weighing 35. 5 gms and was of gold which was valued in the panchnama at Rs. 13,300/ -. He submitted that the complainant Dr. Dayaben had identified this Mangalsutra and the fact that it was found after the incident from the pant pocket of the accused no. 3 shows that these accused persons had, snatched away the Mangalsutra from Dr. Dayaben, while committing assault with knives on her and her husband. 13,300/ -. He submitted that the complainant Dr. Dayaben had identified this Mangalsutra and the fact that it was found after the incident from the pant pocket of the accused no. 3 shows that these accused persons had, snatched away the Mangalsutra from Dr. Dayaben, while committing assault with knives on her and her husband. It was submitted that though the learned Sessions judge had acquitted the accused persons for the offence of robbery, he had done so only on the ground that in the dying declaration, the complainant had not stated about her mangalsutra having been snatched away. But the learned Sessions Judge overlooked the established fact that this Mangalsutra in broken condition which was proved to be of the complainant Dr. Dayaben was recovered from the accused no. 3. He submitted that this aspect can be taken into account for proving the motive of the crime, though since there is no acquittal appeal for the offence of robbery, it cannot be used for holding that they had committed robbery. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the story regarding Dr. Pansuria having got drunk and having tried to attack the accused persons, it nothing but a figment of imagination of the defence and the story is highly improbable and unnatural. It was also submitted that though the defence version is that the dog had bitten the accused no. 3 on his right hand, the medical evidence only shows the tooth bite and not a dog bite. There is no suggestion put to the Doctor that the bite on the right hand of the accused no. 3 was a dog bite. It was further submitted that all the three accused were guests in the house had spent a few hours and it was not likely that the pet dog would, charge any of these accused persons. It was submitted that the dog was a small Pomeranian and it was mercilessly killed by as many as six knife blows to ensure that the accused persons could achieve their mission without its interference and its alerting neighbourhood. The learned public Prosecutor submitted that the accused no. 1 gave a false name in the hospital where he was admitted which reflected his guilt. The learned public Prosecutor submitted that the accused no. 1 gave a false name in the hospital where he was admitted which reflected his guilt. It was submitted that there was absolutely no warrant for interference with the judgment of conviction of these accused persons which was fully justified in view of the evidence on record. ( 8 ) THE incident took place around 1. 00 p. m. during the night between 2. 10. 91 and 3. 10. 91. The fact that these three accused persons had in the evening around 8. 00 oclok gone to the house of Dr. Dayaben is established and admitted. The accused no. 1 was the son-in-law of Dr. Dayabens brother and naturally after identifying him, she treated him and his friends, accused nos. 2 and 3 cordially, and when her husband Dr. Jivraj Pansuria came, they even took them out for a dinner in the nearby Sheetal hotel. The evidence also discloses that they returned to the house of Dr. Dayaben around 11. 00 p. m. at night after finishing their dinner and that they were to stay with her in her house. Dr. Dayaben had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate the accused no. 1 who was her brothers son-in-law. Her version at exh. 12 is that after they had returned from sheetal hotel, they chatted for some time and thereafter, she asked them as to whether they would like to sleep outside in the passage or inside the house and they had stated that they wanted to sleep in the room. They were therefore, given the guest room. Her maid servant went in her own room to sleep and she, her husband Dr. Jivraj Pansuria and their dog Jimmy went in their own bed room. After some time, the dog started barking and therefore, she lifted the curtain of the window which was falling on the front terrace and could see that light of the guest room which was given to the accused persons was on. She therefore, went in the front room and asked them as to why were they not sleeping. They told her that they were not getting sleep and if there was any movie, they could see it on the VCR that may be adjusted. She therefore, went in the front room and asked them as to why were they not sleeping. They told her that they were not getting sleep and if there was any movie, they could see it on the VCR that may be adjusted. She thereupon arranged a movie on the VCR and when her dog pulled her dress, she thought it wanted to ease itself and therefore, she took it to the front terrace and thereafter, came back with it in the room, dog following her. Thereafter, when she was trying to take out water from the refrigerator, she heard someone walking towards her and on looking back, she saw that the accused no. 1 was giving knife blows to the dog. She questioned him as to why was he doing so and thereupon the accused no. 2 shankerji Parma came and gave knife blows to her. She was given six knife blows and started shouting. On hearing her shouts, her husband inquired from the bed room as to what had happened. In the meantime, the accused nos. 1 to 3 pounced on her husband and gave knife blows to him. The complainant told them to leave him and also told them that they could take whatever money they want. They had mounted on her husband and after killing him they got down and while going away, the accused no. 3 snatched her Mangalsutra giving her a push, as a result which, she fell down. As she was severely injured, she remained in the state of semi-consciousness for some time when her maid servant came and told her that she was also given knife blows and that they had gone away. Thereafter, she alongwith the maid servant went in the terrace and she had called the neighbour Mansukhbhai and told him that three guests who had come to their house had assaulted them and gone away. Mansukhbhai informed the police station over phone on the basis of which, station diary entry exh. 44 was made which did not give any particulars of the offence, but only recorded that three persons had assaulted the persons at Dr. Jivraj Pansurias house and had gone away. Obviously, exh. 44 was not the first information of any cognizable offence and was rightly not treated as FIR. 44 was made which did not give any particulars of the offence, but only recorded that three persons had assaulted the persons at Dr. Jivraj Pansurias house and had gone away. Obviously, exh. 44 was not the first information of any cognizable offence and was rightly not treated as FIR. It was only a cryptic message of three persons having come and beaten and gone away from the house of Dr. Pansuria. The evidence of dr. Dayaben is fully corroborated by the medical evidence which shows that six injuries were caused to her on her stomach and two on her neck. She was taken to Parsi General hospital around 3. 00 Oclock during the night of 2. 10. 91 to 3. 10. 1991. Dr. Zubin Satilak p. W. 5 has deposed about her injuries at exh. 20. He has narrated the injuries which he noticed on her. First two injuries were on her neck while injuries nos. 3 to 7 were on her stomach. She had an injury on her right thumb and one on the finger of her left hand. The doctor has, in terms stated that these injuries were possible by a long sharp cutting instrument. He was shown the Muddamal knives article nos. 28, 29, and 30 and he categorically stated that these injuries could be inflicted by a Rampuri Knife which was at article 29. This would mean that these injuries were caused by a knife of the type which was at article no. 29. He has also stated that these injuries were caused about an hour and a half before he had examined them. He has proved the certificate at exh. 21 which he had issued in respect of these injuries. In this cross-examination, he has in terms denied the suggestion, that these injuries could not have been caused by a sharp cutting instrument. It appears that this Doctor described injuries as CLW in his certificate but his positive evidence on oath is that these injuries could have been caused by a sharp cutting instrument like knife article 29. This fully supports the positive evidence of the injured complainant that she was attacked by a knife. It appears that this Doctor described injuries as CLW in his certificate but his positive evidence on oath is that these injuries could have been caused by a sharp cutting instrument like knife article 29. This fully supports the positive evidence of the injured complainant that she was attacked by a knife. Therefore, description of the injuries as clw on the basis of which it was stated that they could not have been caused by a sharp cutting instrument cannot override the positive and reliable evidence of the complainant as supported by the oral evidence of the doctor who had examined her injuries which clearly establishes that the injuries which were caused to Dr. Dayaben were all caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the knife muddamal article 29. We are therefore, somewhat surprised that despite there being six knife injuries on the stomach region of Dr. Dayaben and two on her neck, the learned Sessions Judge could persuade himself to hold that there was no attempt to commit her murder. Anyway, we are not concerned with that aspect of the matter in the present appeal because the State has chosen not to thereafter an appeal against the acquittal for the offence under section 307 of IPC in the context of the injuries which were caused to Dr. Dayaben Pansuria. ( 9 ) DR. Dayaben who had absolutely no enmity against the accused persons and had treated them cordially, could have absolutely no ground for falsely implicating any of these accused persons. The fact that it is tried to be brought on record that she was earlier married to someone has absolutely no relevance and is nothing short of character assassination of this lady. The defence tried to bring it on record that she was married to one Navnit Mehta in May, 1978 on the basis of a photograph which appeared in the newspaper. They tried to show a registration certificate of marriage in her cross-examination which they could not prove. The signatures on this certificate were however, exhibited at exh. 61. The signature of Navnit Mehta bears the date 22. 5. 75, while the signature in the name of Dr. O. K. Padhiar bears the date 22. 5. 78. In her deposition, the complainant Dr. Dayaben has stated without any challenged in her cross-examination that she had married Dr. Pansuria in the year 1970. 61. The signature of Navnit Mehta bears the date 22. 5. 75, while the signature in the name of Dr. O. K. Padhiar bears the date 22. 5. 78. In her deposition, the complainant Dr. Dayaben has stated without any challenged in her cross-examination that she had married Dr. Pansuria in the year 1970. However, we are not called upon to finally adjudicate upon the fact whether she was married to one Navnit mehta, because, that fact is totally irrelevant for the purpose of this case, Suffices it to observe that the memorandum of marriage is not duly proved and the signature of Navnit mehta bears the date of 1975 while the signature purporting to be that of Dr. Dayaben bears the date 22. 5. 1978 which makes the document very doubtful. It may also be noted that the defence version was that she was earlier married to Navnit Mehta before marrying dr. Pansuria. When she was already married to Dr. Pansuria in 1970 there was no question of her having married Navnit Mehta in the year 1978. She has categorically denied any marriage with Navnit Mehta. We are not prepared to draw any inference against the veracity of her version on such ground. ( 10 ) HER dying declaration at exh. 11 was taken down by the Executive Magistrate natubhai Chaudhary P. W. 1 who has deposed at exh. 9. In her dying declaration which was recorded at 3. 30 a. m. in the hospitals, as stated by the said witness, she had stated in reply to question no. 11 that these three accused persons whom she had named had inflicted injuries with knife on her, her husband and her maid servant. Thus, the most important aspect was disclosed at the earliest point of time by Dr. Dayaben in her previous statement before the Executive Magistrate. She has admitted that she had not at that time stated that her Mangalsutra was snatched away by the accused No. 3. It is quite likely that writhing in pain with six injuries on her stomach and two on her neck, she may not have stated about her Mangalsutra having been snatched away in her dying declaration, but the fact remains that in the complaint which she gave soon thereafter, within a couple of hours of the dying declaratoin, she did mention that the accused no. 3 had snatched away her Mangalsutra. 3 had snatched away her Mangalsutra. On all material particulars, the FIR exh. 65a corroborates her version. This aspect of her Mangalsutra having been snached away is fully corroborated by the fact that it was found in broken condition in the pant pocket of the accused no. 3 Batukji Parmar who was apprehended alongwith the accused no. 2 from the railway station. The panch witness Lalitbhai Vaghela P. W. 11 in his deposition exh. 35 has in terms stated that from the right pant pocket of the accused no. 3 Batukji, the said mangalsutra was recovered and it was got weighed by calling a gold smith and that had weighed 35. 5 gms. The panchnama exh. 36 is duly proved and there is a clear mention of the fact that this broken Mangalsutra was recovered from the accused no. 3 in the early morning of 3. 10. 1991. There is no cross-examination of the panch witness on the question of recovery of Mangalsutra of Dr. Dayaben from the accused no. 3. From these facts, we are satisfied that the accused persons wanted to take whatever came to their hand and they in fact, snatched away Mangalsutra afdr. Dayaben and took away after committing the offence of murder of Dr. Jivraj Pansuria and injuries to the eye witnesses. 10a. The fact that Dr. Dayaben in her deposition denied the suggestion that after returning from the dinner, they were talking till 12. 30 p. m. and that according to her, they had chatted for some time is hardly a material contradiction and cannot justify discarding of her evidence on the material aspects. The deposition of Dr. Dayaben clearly establishes that the accused no. 1 had caused several injuries to her dog and killed it which fact is borne out from the evidence of Dr. Ajitkumar, Veterinary who had noted six knife injuries on the dog. Five of these injuries were on the right side of the dog and one piercing would was on its left side which had cut the stomach. The internal examination of the dog showed that its liver, lungs, kidney, heard and intenstines were damaged due to these "injuries. It was a Pomerarian female aged about 4 years. His deposition also establishes that she was attacked with knife and the accused no. 2 had caused injuries to her, while accused nos. The internal examination of the dog showed that its liver, lungs, kidney, heard and intenstines were damaged due to these "injuries. It was a Pomerarian female aged about 4 years. His deposition also establishes that she was attacked with knife and the accused no. 2 had caused injuries to her, while accused nos. 1 and 2 had pounced on her husband in her bed room, pinning him down and causing several injuries to him with a knife, which are noted in the post mortem notes and which resulted in his death. Her deposition about injuries caused with knife to her husband Dr. Jivraj Pansuria in the bedroom while he was on the bed, is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence showing that the bed-sheet and mattresses were all blood soaked and there were blood marks scattered all over the bed-room as also on the switch board. There were also blood marks in the attached bathroom. Blood marks were noted on the clothes which were recovered from the bag which the accused nos. 2 and 3 were having and from which six pairs of hand gloves with two pairs having spots of blood as also the handkerchiefs of maroon and red colour were recovered. The facts that medical evidence shows that injuries were of the nature which could be caused by ramapuri knife which is Muddamal article 29 and not by the knives articles 28 and 30 can never lead to an inference that these three accused were having only one knife in between them. There could be other knives of the type of Muddamal knife article 29 and merely because those knives are not forthcoming, it cannot be said that there was only one knife or that, that fact supports defence version that a knife was brought by Dr. Pansuria for attacking the accused persons. This far fetched defence is not at all warranted in view of the positive evidence on record showing the guilt of the accused persons on that fateful night. The post mortem report which is at exh. 32 was prepared by Dr. Anil Naik P. W. 10 shows that there were following ten injuries on the body of Dr. Jivraj Pansuria. N. A. D. 1. 3/4th "xl/4" CLW over It. side of chin transfere direction it is skin deep. 2. The post mortem report which is at exh. 32 was prepared by Dr. Anil Naik P. W. 10 shows that there were following ten injuries on the body of Dr. Jivraj Pansuria. N. A. D. 1. 3/4th "xl/4" CLW over It. side of chin transfere direction it is skin deep. 2. 1" x 1/8th" oblique sharp cutting wound over anterior side neck 1" below Hyroid cartilage 1" Rt. lateral to midline. It is 1/2" deep. 3. 1 1. 2" x l/8th" transverse 1" deep sharp cutting wound over Rt. side of deest 2" below anterior surrow of axilla. 4. 1" x l/8th" transverse 1" deep sharp cutting wound over Rt. lateral side of chest 6" below posterior furrow of axilla. 5. 1" xl/8th" transverse sharp cutting wound over outer side of upper l/3rd of right upper hand. It is 1" deep. 6. 1" x l/8th" horizontal sharp cutting wound over back over midline over 5th lumber vertebral region. It is skin deep. 7. 1/3" transverse sharp cutting wound over back of neck 1" lateral to midline. It is skin deep. 8. 3"xl/4th" bluish confusion over precosdial region in oblique direction. 9. 3"xl" bluish confusion over lateral side of left thigh obliquely. 10. 1 /4th" x 1 /2" abrasion over outer side of upper 1 /3rd of left over leg. It will be noted that there were injuries inflicted by a sharp cutting instrument below the hiroid cartilage, Chest, below posterior of axilla vertebral region, neck and other parts of the body. As a result of these injuries, blood had collected in the plural cavity and the right lung. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple wounds over chest and neck. Therefore, in a brief span of 10 to 15 minutes that the actual incident lasted, the accused persons caused as many as ten injuries to the deceased Dr. Pansuria, nine injuries to Dr. Dayaben, an injury to the maid servant Sunita,a and six injuries to the dog jimmy. The maid servant Sunita had an injury on her stomach which was caused by a sharp cutting instrument and she was admitted as an indoor patient for about six days. Twelve stitches were taken on that injury. That injury shows that Sunita was awake at the time of the incident and that she had received that injury before the accused persons left the house of Dr. Pansuria. Twelve stitches were taken on that injury. That injury shows that Sunita was awake at the time of the incident and that she had received that injury before the accused persons left the house of Dr. Pansuria. It is therefore, clear that not only knife article 29 was used but similar other knives must also have been used for causing so many injuries. ( 11 ) FROM the deposition of Dayaben supported by other corroborative evidence, we are fully satisfied that the accused nos. 1 and 3 had caused all these injuries to Dr. Jivraj pansuria while he was on his bed. It appears that the accused no. 3 was pinning down Dr. Pansuria, while the accused no. 1 gave repeated knife blows to him. We do not find any infirmity in the deposition of Dr. Dayaben and we are fully satisfied that she is telling the truth about the incident. ( 12 ) SUNITA, the maid servant who had also received serious injuries by a sharp cutting instrument was a young girl of about 13 years of age and she has supported Dr. Dayaben on all material particulars. In her deposition exh. 30 she has stated that these three accused persons had come to the house of Dr. Dayaben around 8. 00 p. m. in the evening of 2. 10. 91 and that thereafter, they were taken out for dinner by Dr. Dayaben and her husband Dr. Pansuria. She has stated in her cross-examination that Dr. Pansuria never took liquor. She has narrated the incident about the dog barking during night and thereafter, Dr. Dayaben shouting at the accused no. 1 asking him to leave the dog. She had seen the accused no. 1 giving knife blows to the dog and the accused no. 2 giving knife blows to Dr. Dayaben. She has stated that accused nos. 1 and 3 had gone inside the bed room and they gave knife blows to Dr. Pansuria. She got scared and therefore, she went back in her room. This was a natural conduct on her part as she was a young girl of about 13 years and must have got scarred seeing the accused persons in such aggressive mood. She has stated that the accused no. Pansuria. She got scared and therefore, she went back in her room. This was a natural conduct on her part as she was a young girl of about 13 years and must have got scarred seeing the accused persons in such aggressive mood. She has stated that the accused no. 1 had thereafter, knocked at the door and asked her to come out and when she came out, she was given a knife blow in her stomach. On that aspect, she is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. She pretended to fall and kept on lying down so that no further harm was done to her. Thereafter, she heard the lock being removed from which she inferred that the accused had left. She has stated that the accused were having one dark coloured bag. It was submitted that she was an employee of Dr. Dayaben and her story was not natural and she could not be relied upon. It was also submitted that there was no reason to call her out from her room. It would be noted that the grill was locked from inside before the inmates had retired to bed and obviously therefore, the accused persons must be trying to search for the key. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural in the accused No. 1 asking her to come out of the room where she had withdrawn, having seen the incident and having got scared of these accused persons. The fact remains that the accused persons had opened the door and had gone away. The evidence of this witness is natural and there is no reason why she should falsely implicate these accused just because she was serving in the house of Dr. Dayaben. she could not have received knife injury on her stomach, except by one of the accused persons. It is not the defence version that Sunita had intervened in the manner which had resulted in a knife injury on her stomach. The fact that she was injured during that night also falsifies the defence version because Dayaben could never have inflicted any knife injury on her and there was no one else who could have done it, except the accused persons since Dr. Jivraj Pansuria was already dead and even if he was alive, there was no reason for him to inflict injury on their maid servant. Jivraj Pansuria was already dead and even if he was alive, there was no reason for him to inflict injury on their maid servant. We are inclined to accept the version of this prosecution witness and hold that even from her deposition, it is established that the accused nos. 1 and 3 pinned down Dr. Pansuria on his bed and inflicted knife blows which resulted in his death and that Dr. Dayaben was also injured by knife blows and that the accused no. 1 had also given a knife blow to her. ( 13 ) THE accused persons around 1. 30 to 2. 00 O clock during that nightgot into the auto rickshaw of Ajaykumar, P. W. 4 who has deposed at exh. 14 that these three accused persons got into his auto rickshaw, asked him for a good hospital and they were taken to k. G. Hospital where the accused no. 1 got down while the accused nos. 2 and 3 proceeded further in his auto rickshaw. They had asked him to take them to Surat, but as he did not want to go to Surat, they asked him to drop them at the railway station. They were dropped at the railway station. After some time, police constable Nivrutti had made an inquiry from him near the station and he had gone with the police to the railway station where the accused nos. 2 and 3 were found in the waiting room. The fact that the accused nos. 2 and 3 were apprehended at the railway station, is amply borne out from the evidence of this witness and the evidence of the police constable Nivrutti Borse who has deposed at exh. 41. The panchnama at exh. 36 as noted above, shows various articles which were recovered from the accused nos. 2 and 3 which included Mangalsutra of Dr. Dayaben recovered from the accused no. 3 and six pairs of hand gloves including two pairs blood stained ones, and other blood stained articles. The fact that the accused no. 1 gave a false name in the K. G. Hospital is amply borne out from the evidence of Dr. Anilkumar P. W. 9 who has deposed at exh. 28 that the accused no. 1 had come to him at about 2. 30 a. m. on 3. 10. The fact that the accused no. 1 gave a false name in the K. G. Hospital is amply borne out from the evidence of Dr. Anilkumar P. W. 9 who has deposed at exh. 28 that the accused no. 1 had come to him at about 2. 30 a. m. on 3. 10. 1991 and he had noted an injury on his right hand which is described by him as CLW. He has stated that, that injury was possible by a sharp cutting instrument like knife article no. 28. He has stated that initially the accused no. 1 had given his name as Jigneshkumar Ambalal Patel, resident of Vadodara, but on the next day, his correct name was known. He has stated that while inflicting the blows with the knife, if the hand slips, then the injuries of the nature found on the hand of the accused can be caused. Therefore, it is possible that while inflicting so many blows with the knife, the accused no. 1 may have injured his own hand in one of the blows where his hand slipped from the handle to the plade. The circumstances that the accused had given a false name at the hospsital shows that he had done so with a view to hide his real identity and to prevent his being traced in the hospital as an assailant of Dr. Pansuria. The deposition of dr. Anil Vyas that the injury of the nature as found on the accused no. 1 was possible by his hand slipping over the blade of the knife with which he was giving the blows, explains the said injury on the said accused. The injury on the accused no. 2 Shankerji was a minor injury on his right hand wrist, while the injury on the right hand of the accused no. 3 batukji was a tooth-bite of 1/4" which was lateral and only skin deep. It is not suggested to this doctor that this was a dog bite injury. The evidence clearly, shows that these accused persons were having knives and they had used force when they assaulted Dr. Pansuria, his wife and the maid servant. These injuries could have been caused to them while they were using the weapons and assaulting these persons. It is not suggested to this doctor that this was a dog bite injury. The evidence clearly, shows that these accused persons were having knives and they had used force when they assaulted Dr. Pansuria, his wife and the maid servant. These injuries could have been caused to them while they were using the weapons and assaulting these persons. The obligation of the prosecution to explain such minor injuries found on these accused may not arise in each and every case as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Harekrishnasinh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 863 . It is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injury sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. In the present case, the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution who have seen the incident and were injured by these accused persons, are reliable witnesses and they proved the guilt of these accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the question of obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by these accused persons does not arise. The prosecution has come with a definite case that these offences have been committed by these accused persons and has prove it. It therefore, becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries were caused to these accused persons. As noted above, there is satisfactory explanation coming forth in the medical evidence as regards injury on the right palm of the accused no. 1. The injuries on the accused nos. 2 and 3 were of very minor nature. Therefore, the positive version of the injured eye witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the injuries on these accused persons have not been satisfactorily explained. ( 14 ) THE contention that the death of Dr. Pansuria could have been caused because of suffocation and that suffocation might have been caused because of his vomitting due to over-drinking was sought to be urged on the basis of the, cross-examination of dr. Anil kumar Naik, P. W. 10 who had performed post mortem examination on the body of Dr. Pansuria, where he has stated that he agreed with the suggesstion that in this case, death was caused due to suffocation, However, that sentence cannot be taken out of its context and read in isolation. Anil kumar Naik, P. W. 10 who had performed post mortem examination on the body of Dr. Pansuria, where he has stated that he agreed with the suggesstion that in this case, death was caused due to suffocation, However, that sentence cannot be taken out of its context and read in isolation. In that very paragraph earlier, he has stated that if blood collects in the lungs, that would cause difficulty in breathing and if breathing stops that would stop blood flow to the brain and a person can die out of shock. He has stated that when breathing is interrupted, it results in suffocation and death can occur. It is in this context that he stated that in case of Dr. Pansuria, death had occurred due to suffocation. It has come in evidence that because of the knife injuries on, the chest, blood had collected in the right plural cavity and right side of the lung. Therefore, these injuries which resulted in shock and heamorrhage due to stab wounds over neck and chest would have caused obstruction in breathing because of blood collection in the plural cavity and lung which would in turn, have caused suffocation. There is absolutely no reason to infer that Dr. Pansuria died because of any suffocation due to vomitting or due to food particles obstructing the passage and causing suffocation. There is therefore, no, substance in the contention that death of Dr. Pansuria was not caused due to injuries which were inflicted on him by the accused. Under the above circumstances, the defence suggestion that Dr. Pansuria got drunk and that he got enraged over the accused no. 3 who tried to beat the dog and himself, started attacking him with a knife, is without any substance. The positive evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of these accused persons and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that these accused persons had, in furtherance of their common intention had intentionally caused death of Dr. Jivraj Pansuria by inflicting knife blows is fully justified and deserves to be upheld. The finding that the accused no. The positive evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of these accused persons and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that these accused persons had, in furtherance of their common intention had intentionally caused death of Dr. Jivraj Pansuria by inflicting knife blows is fully justified and deserves to be upheld. The finding that the accused no. 1 had by inflicting knife blows caused death of the dog and committed an offence under section 11 (1) (1) of the protection of Cruelty to Animals Act and section 429 of the Indian Penal Code is also fully justified and borne out from the evidence on record, and deserves to be upheld. As noted above, the evidence clearly discloses that six knife wounds on the stomach of Dr. Dayaben and two wounds on her neck were caused by the accused no. 1 in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. But the learned Sessions Judge has chosen to hold that there was no attempt to murder. These injuries were on the vital parts of the body and when six injuries with knife are inflicted on the abdomen and two on the neck of a person, it would be difficult to may say that there was no attempt to murder. However, there is no State appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for six injuries which were caused to Dr. Dayaben and the learned Sessions Judge has convicted them for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code committed in furtherance of their common intention by causing injuries to Dr. Dayaben and Sunita. There is absolutely no valid reasons to interfere with that conviction also. ( 15 ) UNDER the above circumstances, the appellants have not made out any ground for interference with the impugned decision convicting them for the offences under sections 302, 323, 429 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 11 (1) (1) of the protection of Cruelty to Animals Act as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 30. 4. 1993. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. .